Why does the mere fact that they are born at the same time mean that twins are both people, while clones are not? You haven't explained your reasoning here.
Again, you keep just saying this without actually explaining it.
Is playing God - 'human cloning' not a dangeroues game?
- Thread starter Busy
- Start date
I'm just saying twins are two different people, born naturally like any body. They have their own identity
Ok, lets say there is a person named Moe. He is 21 and makes a clone of himself. That clone is technology, and the clone is Moe's property.
In other words, we can use clones to do a variety of things. A clone is like a robot
Ok, lets say there is a person named Moe. He is 21 and makes a clone of himself. That clone is technology, and the clone is Moe's property.
In other words, we can use clones to do a variety of things. A clone is like a robot
Wow, they already passed a law about it?
No, the cone was made using technology. The clone is a living organism no different from you or I.
no obviously there is no law because we dont clone yet. But I am saying, if I made a clone of myself, that clone is my property, just like my X360 or TV or whatever. If I want to use him for labor, he must obey. If I want to use him for whatever reason, he must obey
They are not their own identity. The original person owns the clone.
Lol, communist hamster, this is coming from you? A communist?
They are not their own identity. The original person owns the clone.
Lol, communist hamster, this is coming from you? A communist?
So if there's no law why should the clone be your property?
You were "made" by your parents, so they can use you for whatever purpose?
And how did YOU become your own identity?
By what logic?
Then you know nothing about logic, or the intellectual development of humans or the development of personality.
The genetic material will be yours, but the mind, experiences and memories that form the personality will not be.
It will become its own person.
Because it will not BE you.
Yeah, same as humans.
But they are not created by God, they are not ''unique''. They are technology. The definition for technology is ''That of which is employed in order to serve a purpose''
Clones dying isnt as tragic as humans dying. I'd rather a clone of you die than you yourself
, because you'd still be around
Clones dying isnt as tragic as humans dying. I'd rather a clone of you die than you yourself
, because you'd still be aroundAnd there are people who are?
Only genetically - intellectually they will be.
And you make up your own definitions as well, however incorrect, to suit your own purposes.
Try the web:
Prove it - they'd still be individuals, with human genetics.
And since a clone wouldn't be anyone other than himself he, of course, would rather that you die, since he'd still be around.I'd rather a clone of you die than you yourself
Okay, yes we are all created by God
And the application of science! We are applying science to make clones in order to SERVE us and our needs
He is not unique in any way.
The reason it wouldnt be as tragic is because: If it died, you could just clone yourself again and there we go. If you died, we cannot clone anyone
But if I die I cant make clones of myself. If my clone dies, I can just make another. They are disposable.
And the application of science! We are applying science to make clones in order to SERVE us and our needs
He is not unique in any way.
The reason it wouldnt be as tragic is because: If it died, you could just clone yourself again and there we go. If you died, we cannot clone anyone
But if I die I cant make clones of myself. If my clone dies, I can just make another. They are disposable.
In your opinion.
And we apply science to make sick people better - does that make them property?
Do they then belong to the doctor that cured them?
His metal development would be unique.
Or alternatively we could clone him, since he shares all of my genetic material, and create another individual.
See above.
Wrong.
They would be individuals.
No, oh my gosh arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall.
The God issue-lets lay that to rest, shall we?
Anyway, we make the sick better, but the property is the medicine used, the routine and procedures taken. It is SERVING the sick.
I was assuming that you had no clone, and you died, we could no longer make more of you.
No, because if a clone dies you make another, so its disposable.
Beacuse you don't listen.
Well since you believe that humans are god-made and clones are human-made it's pretty hard to lay aside, neh?
Which differs how from cloning?
The property would be the routines and procedures taken - the basis would be human genetics.
And since a clone would be an individual unique intellect then if he died that would be a tragedy.
By that logic:
If a human dies all it takes is sex (far less involved than cloning), and nine months later - another human.
So humans are disposable too, no?
Ok, for your first two I wont answer
But as for your third:
The property is the procedures and technology used, in order to produce the Clone, which then SERVES us
Not really, because if a clone dies, he is not an individual. If a person dies, you cannot replace THAT SAME invdividual with sex. If a clone dies, clone the host and then you have another
Humans are invdividuals, unique in nature. We can't be replaced. Clones are like disposable cameras, they are ALL THE SAME. Does every disposable camera differ? Are they individuals? Nope, they are objects.
But as for your third:
The property is the procedures and technology used, in order to produce the Clone, which then SERVES us
Not really, because if a clone dies, he is not an individual. If a person dies, you cannot replace THAT SAME invdividual with sex. If a clone dies, clone the host and then you have another
Humans are invdividuals, unique in nature. We can't be replaced. Clones are like disposable cameras, they are ALL THE SAME. Does every disposable camera differ? Are they individuals? Nope, they are objects.
The following is an interesting argument:
Perhaps you are a theist and believe that a clone has no soul. If that is your rationale, please say so.
How about the following:
Once born and allowed to survive for a while, a clone has consciousness, a functioning brain, ambitions, emotions, a knowledge of its own mortality, et cetera. Your clone would be basically as intelligent as you. What makes you somehow better than your clone and gives you the right to own him/her?
Perhaps you are a theist and believe that a clone has no soul. If that is your rationale, please say so.
The following is an interesting argument:How about the followingnce born and allowed to survive for a while, a clone has consciousness, a functioning brain, ambitions, emotions, a knowledge of its own mortality, et cetera. Your clone would be basically as intelligent as you. What makes you somehow better than your clone and gives you the right to own him/her?
Perhaps you are a theist and believe that a clone has no soul. If that is your rationale, please say so.
But your clone has no IDENTITY as a Human Being. He shares my identity, therefore I am his master ( a Host I suppose)
Wow, that is ridiculous and preposterous rationale. A clone is still a living being and no matter what your intention for it, it will still have a brain able to understand and have a sense of self and that sense of self has a right to make decisions for it's own welfare. You essentially cannot really own another viable life but oppress it because it has the same needs and desires to be free and happy just like you. You are no different than those who would use others through slavery or any form of oppression for your own benefit. That is just terrible.
Slavery is wrong. You should not bind a human being, or any living life form. So, because you dont want and shouldnt bind living beings, simply make a few clones of them. AFter all, the Host (the true Human being) is still enjoying his life.
You are not his frigging master, it's a clone of you asshat. He doesn't share your identity and if he did share your mental makeup whereby he agreed to give up his life for you then maybe it would be okay but if he disagreed, it would be no less than murder.